Master Rater..... Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Master Rater.....

    Is anyone else unhappy with the simplicity in which DGCR handles ratings?

    A disc golf course is a complex thing that is constantly evolving. There are so many courses where a rating from 3-5 years ago maybe completely inaccurate for good or ill when used to assess the current course layout/conditions.

    I have a few ideas but was wondering if other had thoughts on the matter?

    Idea 1: Date weighted ratings. Newer ratings are counted more heavily than older ratings, you can always update your review if you have played again recently and thereby increase its weight. There are a number of way to accomplish this, oldest review weighted at 50% newest at 150% everything in between at a relative percentage.

    Idea 2: A more structured rating system. Sure leave room for a narrative there is often great info in the narratives but when it comes to stars I feel like we would all be better served by breaking things down a little more. A courses "rating" could be the composite of 5 different aspects. For example:

    Course Design:4.5
    Layout: 3.5
    Tee Pads: 1.0
    Amenities: 1.0
    Environment: 4.0
    TOTAL: 2.8

    So this course doesn't score very high, unless, you don't really care about tee pads or bathrooms/parking/access to water then this is a great course a solid 4 stars.

    Anyway unsure about what categories make the most sense to rate but it should be somewhere in between 4-8 I would think and it forces every reviewer to really think about the courses as a whole while reviewing.

    Idea 3: No reviews until you have marked 5 different courses as played. To avoid having the blind lead the blind (or as I call it "an iPhone or an iPhone makes the world go blind"). This idea is simple play a few courses first then go back and review them all but wait until you have something to compare it to. This isn't rate your experience at the course, it's rate the course and that is a relative concept. If there was only one disc golf course in the world it would be 5 stars until someone thought hey I can do better made a new course and now it's 5 stars and the old one is 4, so on and so on.

    Anyway curious to hear other opinions, point of views, or piggy backs.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Great thoughts,

    Have you posed the thoughts over on the site yet? (I'll cruise over there next)
    I am particularly interested in application of date weighting the ratings. (much like recent rounds influencing PDGA rating - so there's precedent in a way)

    My thoughts on the DGCR scene and review scores:

    For those who are personally "connected" to a course, the review feature drives us nuts. "Connected" doesn't mean designer, it could be those who take pride in a course, care for the course, recognize the gem that it is, etc. Those who are connected with the course see the uninformed, cluelessly casual, Whats In It For Me only crowd placing a haphazard review and it drives us crazy.

    Then there is the users of their site that look to reviews and post reviews as "travelers". They are less connected and generally learn to sort the reviews out themselves by some criteria. It's a modern phenomenon, but the general population in our society is slowly gaining the skills of weeding through "reviews" and social media junk with our own filters. Some have this skill and are great at sorting the fluff from the real, but there are still a big cohort of people that are missing out on some good stuff because one negative gets locked in their mind from one isolated comment and its entrenched forever as gospel truth.

    The third group over on DGCR are those who are fixated on ratings scores for the "top ten" spots as everything. This group is very present on the forum, and likely would play a big influencer role in helping or opposing review rating formulation changes. I wouldn't take the influence of this group lightly if changing things up is important to you.

    OK, so that doesn't give you a lot of helpful info other than me liking the idea of date weighting results. As it currently is, there is a big downside for DGCR review level or status if you open a course softly. If DGCR review level was important it'd be wise to withold opening until you were completely finished, polished. Oh yeah, that loses the ability for the best outcomes as the best changes happen with those slow rolling starts..
    Last edited by WestsoundBT; September 24th, 2012, 09:35 AM. Reason: sp

    Comment


    • #3
      I took your advise and cross posted. I don't think you even have to be that connected to course to be a little flustered. Take the Fort as an example: old course lots of history as they make changes and improvements, right old wrongs, how long will it take to repair their rating?
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        I've been thinking about your proposals a bit more since my first reply. And I've seen where you posted over on the DGCR site

        For others, it over on DGCR (logged in)
        Forums > Site specific > bugs and help

        I think I still like the idea of weighted ratings over time for all the reasons you shared, plus your stated concept that non changing courses should be theoretically getting similar consistent review averages. (plus I don't think any courses are non-changing)

        Line item rating, or category rating scheme: I think it is a lost cause, as its true that there will not be any consensus to be reached. I think a global rating is the only "agreeable" that will ever be reached. Unless the review site had Started that that way, which it didn't.

        The minimal played requirement is not likely to work as it flies in the face of any social inclusive website. It sets a barrier to participation in the core activity of the site, which is counter to its goal to grow and be more far reaching. Most social reaching websites are usually desiring to lower barriers to interaction. *now, show the rating with all ratings included and a toggle for viewing the rating with "lesser qualified reviewers removed" and we have something.

        But again, the central operating body wants inclusiveness for growth and market purposes.

        Yet keep banging the drum for weighted date reviews, and I'll endorse it.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think there should be a time limit for ratings as well. There should be no reason for a bad rating to show up that says "there were no tee pads or signs" because the course was new and under construction. Fast forward two years and all is well, but that review still is bad saying no tees or signs...

          Comment

          Announcement Announcement Module
          Collapse
          No announcement yet.
          Working...
          X